Evidence establishing the bus driver’s sole negligence defeats a claim of contributory negligence.

The claimants sought compensation for the death of Ramachandran in an accident involving a bus owned by the appellant Transport Corporation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tenkasi, awarded them ₹25,74,500, calculating dependency on a notional monthly income of ₹15,000, adding 25% for future prospects, and applying a multiplier of 14.

The Corporation appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the finding on negligence and the assessment of income.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In assessing compensation, the court considered whether the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and its calculation of loss of dependency and other heads were supported by the evidence and were just and reasonable.

The judgment cites no specific precedent or further statutory provision.

The Court rejected the contributory-negligence argument because the FIR was registered against the bus driver, the eyewitness’s evidence supported the finding that the driver’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident, and the appellant produced no contrary evidence; moreover, its police-witness admitted in cross-examination that the driver was responsible.

The Court upheld the ₹15,000 monthly income assessment, noting the accident occurred in 2019, the deceased worked as a hill-folk honey collector, and the claimants had not produced documentary proof of the asserted ₹20,000 monthly income.

It also found the multiplier and total compensation of ₹25,74,500 just and reasonable.

It directed the Corporation to deposit the full award, with interest and costs, within eight weeks; the claimants were permitted to withdraw their shares in accordance with the Tribunal’s award.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.